NIRANJAN SINGH GURJAR,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), GWALIOR
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits, despite the assessee claiming lack of opportunity. The Tribunal found it appropriate to offer one last opportunity and remit the matter back for adjudication on merits, ensuring principles of natural justice.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against an order that confirmed additions made by the Assessing Officer. The additions were for cash deposits and credit entries totaling Rs. 82,49,629/- in the assessee's bank account, for which no explanation or evidence was provided.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH
ORDER
Per Sunil Kumar Singh, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 08.11.2024 passed in Appeal No.CIT(A), Gwalior/11015/2019- 20 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) , wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer.
Brief facts state that for want of any explanation or evidence on behalf of the appellant/assessee to explain the nature and source of cash deposit of Rs.35,35,000/- and credit entries of Rs.47,14,629/- totaling to Rs.82,49,629/- in the bank account of assessee, the Assessing Officer added the aforesaid amount in the hands of assessee u/s. 69A of the Act vide assessment order dated 27.12.2019.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals) who confirmed the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer and dismissed assessee’s first appeal for want of any submission or representation on behalf of the appellant/assessee.
We have perused the records and heard learned representatives for the assessee and the Revenue.
Learned representative for the assessee has submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals), ex parte without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. He further submitted that even the adjournment request of the assessee was not accepted by the ld. CIT(A).Prayed to set aside the impugned order.
Learned DR has submitted that the assessee was provided sufficient opportunity of hearing by learned CIT(Appeals) on various occasions, but for no avail. Learned DR has supported the impugned order.
We notice that the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the first appellate authority on 14.01.2021,16.12.2021,10.08.2023, 26.04.2024, 12.07.2024, 22.08.2024,27.09.2024 and 09.10.2024. It is however noticed that learned CIT(Appeals) passed ex-parte impugned 2 | P a g e order without any discussion on the merits of the case, whereas learned CIT(Appeals) was expected to state the points for determination, decision thereon and the reasons for the decision as provided u/s. 250(6) of the Act.
In the circumstances and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it just and appropriate to afford last opportunity to the assessee and remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits.
We order accordingly. We further direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the learned CIT(Appeals) for the expeditious and effective disposal. Assessee shall refrain from seeking any adjournment but for compelling and unavoidable reasons. Needless to say that learned CIT(Appeals) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. The appeal is liable to be allowed accordingly.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The impugned order dt. 08.11.2024 is set aside.
Order pronounced in the open court on 02.04.2025.
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
